"The children of God should not have any other country here below but the universe itself, with the totality of all the reasoning creatures it ever has contained, contains, or ever will contain. That is the native city to which we owe our love." --Simone Weil

Monday, September 7, 2009

Obama's Controversial Uncontroversial Speech

Because of what happened on that day, almost all of us know that on the morning of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush visited an elementary school, talking and reading to the kids—and, I’m sure, encouraging them to study hard and stay in school, to take advantage of the educational system that our nation provides, and to develop the skills and knowledge they need in order to succeed and to contribute to the this great nation’s future.

I’m certain it was a thrilling experience for the children, at least until the tragic events of the day cast a shadow over the proceedings: The president of the United States of America, the most powerful political leader in the world, was coming to their school to talk to them!

Even children whose parents had voted for Al Gore (and perhaps believed the election had been stolen) were likely excited about the presidential visit. After all, even if one doesn’t agree with the policies and visions of a particular president, the office itself merits respect, as does the constitutional system which guarantees that the office-holder is elected through democratic means. At least that’s what my politically conservative friends would tell me when I’d criticize the Bush administration and its policies.

Had I been a parent at that school, there’s a snitty and less-than-admirable part of me that might have been tempted to keep my child home in order to protest the improperly elected usurper’s attempts to authenticate his sham presidency through the star-struck wonder of school children. Instead, I like to think I'd have swallowed back these partisan and unfair exaggerations in favor of letting my child enjoy the thrill of such an extraordinary visit: the President of the United States taking time out of his overwhelming schedule to meet with our kids. In fact, this seems like one of the most benign and admirable uses of the office of the presidency—to use it as a platform to reach out to our young people and encourage them to make full use of the educational opportunities our nation provides.

Now, eight years after the second Bush's fateful classroom visit, President Barack Obama is borrowing a page from the first President Bush by offering a live, televised speech to school children at the start of the school year—a speech whose message encourages kids to study hard and stay in school, to take advantage of the educational system that our nation provides, and to develop the skills and knowledge they need in order to succeed and to contribute to this great nation’s future. I've read the text of the speech, so I can confirm that this is pretty much what it's about.

Where I live in Oklahoma—which has the distinction of having been the “reddest” state in the union during the last presidential election—the announcement that Obama would offer such a speech became an occasion for widespread outrage. The event has been likened to Nazi propagandizing, and has been called an effort to indoctrinate school kids into Obama’s “socialist” agenda. Parents—and not just a few of them—threatened to keep kids home from school in order to protect them from this intolerable affront to human decency. And insofar as the attendance rate is one of the measures by which schools are evaluated and ranked, this is a threat that school administrators take seriously.

In the town where I live, the school district responded with the following policy: there would be no general airing of the speech, but individual teachers might choose to show it if they judged it a good fit with their lesson plan. But teachers who did so would need to inform parents in advance and offer an alternative activity for those students whose parents did not give them permission to watch. I'm sure there are plenty of parents who will do just that.

All of this is true even though the Obama administration has been assuring everyone from the start that the president’s speech wouldn’t be a partisan one. One wonders, in the face of this assurance, how the language of “propaganda” and “indoctrination” can take a foothold. Do Obama’s detractors really think he would lie about something like this? And if so, do they imagine that Obama could get away with such a lie, when the speech in question is being nationally televised and subject to the inevitable scrutiny of the news-hungry media, including Fox News, as well as every conservative blogger in the country?

Let’s be honest here: Barack Obama is far too politically savvy to put himself into that kind of political trap. And so, even before the text of his speech was made public earlier today, we could all be pretty confident that the speech would be exactly what he said it would be. After having read the text of it, I can testify that, while it's inevitably laced with personal anecdotes from Obama's life and inspiring stories of students who made the most of their education despite challenges (the kinds of "personalizing" narratives that Reagan popularized), the speech is essentially an effort to inspire young people to make full use of the opportunities that a public education provides.

None of this is the least bit surprising. I doubt that anyone who really reflected on the matter seriously believed that Obama would commit political suicide by using the school speech as a platform to advocate controversial policy initiatives.

Which can only lead me to believe that this furor about “propaganda” and “indoctrination” has been about something other than the content of the speech all along. What it comes down to, I think, is that airing Obama’s speech in schools carries with it a subtext: Here is a man you should listen to, someone whose opinion counts, someone, perhaps, whom you should even respect. And many opponents of Obama--despite the notion that the office of the presidency confers a certain measure of respect regardless of who occupies it--are appalled by the prospect of this message.

In many cases, the reason why conservatives don’t want their kids to look on our current president with an attitude of respect is purely political. They want Obama’s policy agenda to fail, and they think that if our kids look up to Obama, that attitude might “trickle up,” improving Obama’s political capital.

At least in a few cases, the source of this opposition is rooted in racism, most likely the covert kind that operates on the subconscious rather than the conscious level. Obama is a black man who is refined and eloquent and brilliant, and as such defies some of the more deeply embedded racial stereotypes. We tend to be fans of our stereotypes and prejudices, so much so that we long, unconsciously at least, to pass them on to our children. Obama’s speech threatens that.

In other cases, the source of the opposition is likely rooted in the kind of populism that disdains academics and intellectuals. The grim truth is that Obama is an intellectual to the core, a policy wonk who once helmed the Harvard Law Review and who can intelligently discuss Reinhold Niebuhr’s views on moral paradox with the best among academic theologians. And at some point in the course of American history, there has emerged a confusion between two things: on the one hand, the rare and distinctive intellectual achievement which renders some people more deserving than others of our attention simply because they know what they’re talking about; on the other hand, the patterns of social and economic privilege that systematically diminish genuine equal opportunity for every citizen.

Paradoxically, George W. Bush was a beneficiary of political and economic privilege, a man whose political career would likely never have happened if not for the familial connections and resources he could draw on—but he did not run afoul of the dominant American populism because he talked and acted like a regular guy. By contrast, Obama, who was clearly not a beneficiary of privilege, who worked his way up through the use of his native gifts and took advantage of the opportunities presented him to eventually become the first African American president, does run afoul of this populism. Obama comes off as if he’s smarter than most other people, not because he tries to show off, but because he is smarter than most other people.

Ironically, someone like Obama is precisely the kind of person with the authority to tell school kids that if they stay in school, work hard, become engaged in civic life and take advantage of the opportunities that they are given, they can grow up to be whatever their talents allow…perhaps even President of the United States. Such a message has far more authority coming from Obama than it does from someone who grew up in a wealthy and politically connected family. After reading the text of his speech, I can confirm that Obama takes advantage of this fact, highlighting his own personal struggles in order to accentuate the message that even the child of a financially struggling single mother can make it in this country.

Perhaps the kind of elitism that is represented by Obama is seen as a threat precisely because it is rooted in who Obama is rather than in who his friends and family are. Perhaps parents are subconsciously afraid that their children will see Obama and not only get the message that this is someone they are supposed to look up to, but end up actually doing so. Obama might just come off looking good in front of children across the country, even among those children whose parents have been so polarized against Obama that they want their children to think of Obama as the antichrist. Perhaps parents fear that the next time they claim that Obama threatens the very fabric of civilization, their kids will look at them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

If so, I'm afraid that, at least in most cases, these parents may be underestimating their own powers of indoctrination.

Great post, but let's get right to the point. This is about hate, pure and simple. And the haters of the right wouldn't get a minute of air time were it not for the hate media built around talk radio and FOX news. They'd only be muttering into their John Birch Society beers if quite a few rich people operating purely out of self-interest hadn't spent the last couple of decades building a media segment dedicated to stroking the erogenous hate-zones of less educated, salt-of-the-earth, conservative citizens, complete with populist disinformation (but oddly, with a pro-corporate and anti-union bias).

That the mainstream media gives this Obama speech episode any attention at all is a disgrace. It just goes to show why the Greeks were wary of democracy .. just see what they did to Socrates.

The grim truth is that Obama is an intellectual to the core, a policy wonk who once helmed the Harvard Law Review and who can intelligently discuss Reinhold Niebuhr’s views on moral paradox with the best among academic theologians.

And yet when Rick Warren (the sober and proFOUND intellectual) asked him to define "sin" out at Saddleback, he said "Um, acting out of alignment with my values." I kinda doubt that he's quite as deep as you're giving him credit for.

someone like Obama is precisely the kind of person with the authority to tell school kids that if they stay in school, work hard, become engaged in civic life and take advantage of the opportunities that they are given, they can grow up to be whatever their talents allow…perhaps even President

He's a much better example of how a big combination of some work, some accomplishment, and an image that politicians find highly electable, you can rise to high power in the corrupt US gov't w/o accomplishing all that much or having any substantive position on much of anything, especially when you can lie convincingly. No thanks, there are far, far better examples out there for children.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I thought all the rage was justified. I thought it was ridiculous. But this article is just as ridiculous.And Burk, hate? Come on! The hate is provoked by the terrible policies. I'm sure it does bleed over for many people onto the man, but if the man had some decent, non-un-American policies, he'd be much better liked. Spare me your crybaby "hate" blather.

What are the policies so far? Obama hasn't been in office a year, and done little but siphon money to the banks, just as Bush did before him. Or saving the car industry. Or running deficits just like his predecessor, and as every reputable economist recommends. What's not to like? Oh, I guess health care- the prospect of helping take care of your brother seems repulsive and hate-able, is that it?

You may not appreciate someone who is able to think well, write well, speak well, feel for others, and lead others as "deep" if he does not agree with your rather parochial notions of absolute sin and biblical authority. But as you probably could tell from the last election results, others can. At any rate, Obama made it entirely on his own, by the rules as given by the establishment, which for you might signify a shallow person, but if so, it is exactly the person our system (from the founding onwards) was meant to raise from the common run and bring to the head of affairs.

"Some work, some accomplishment" ? What is your image of a politician? Who among us is better suited? Rick Warren? Is it really necessary to bathe us all in non-stop god-talk to make you politically happy? From his invocation: "Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all." Could have fooled me, since every other word was "god". The lie here was patently obvious- we'd be united in unfree theocracy in Warren's world. Perhaps in yours as well.

So tell us, what do you really have against him? How do Obama's lies stack up against any president's of the last generation? Or his sex scandals, especially in view of the current Republican field? How is his personal life, beliefs, and example a problem, other than not being in your particular sect of Christian doctrine? Could you take a moment to look inside and see what is really going on?

This was great! Well-written and well-thought-out. I consider myself an atheist, though I prefer the term non-believer, but I'm very intrigued by your perspective and I've added you to the blogs I'll be following. (Seeing as how this piece was a political piece, I can say I agreed with every word. :-) ) Thank you for posting this.

0bama's continuation and furthering of Dubya's wrongheaded policies show me he's not interested in change at all, for one thing. And thus he's a liar. And "saving" the car industry and fat cat bankers is not "change" either - it's continued pandering to his fat cat lobbyist and union friends. Same song, different verse. But he's gone way further than that, with his $800 billion "stimulus" pkg, and his continued insistence on the public option health insurance. Terrible idea.

Oh, I guess health care- the prospect of helping take care of your brother seems repulsive and hate-able, is that it?

What is about liberals and confusing generous, charitable donations with higher taxes? I see it everywhere I turn. Biden was talking about this during the VP debate and I couldn't believe how stupid he was to say it.More importantly, if the gov't forces me to pay more taxes to pay for 0bamacare, there is not even the opportunity for charity, for love, for neighborliness (as Biden is fond of saying). Forced "charity" is not charity at all. If I don't pay my taxes, all of them, the IRS will try to force my employer to garnish wages. If I get around that, they'll send the police to arrest me. If I resist them, they'll have authority even to kill me! It has nothing to do with Xtian love or moral obligation.

think well, etc

That's just the thing. He DOESN'T think well. If he did, I'd appreciate it.Is it really too much to ask that a man like the President, if he claims to be a Christian and trumpets it when he can, could get at least the most basic of beliefs correct? No need to "bathe" me; just show some evidence you know what you're talking about. Just a little.

But as you probably could tell from the last election results, others can.

Unlike apparently you do, I don't think truth is found thru counting noses. My guess is you are now disregarding the polls that show high and growing disapproval with Chairman 0bama, b/c it's inconvenient for you.

What is your image of a politician? Who among us is better suited? Rick Warren?

Rick Warren, while by no means a great thinker or great man, would be a hell of a lot better President than 0bama. My image of a politician, anyway, is a slimeball who virtually always lies, in order to get re-elected. My vision of what he SHOULD be, however, comes from the Constitution.

Could have fooled me, since every other word was "god".

Actually, I count one (1) "God" in there. Maybe you quoted the wrong part of the invocation?And an invocation is a (worthless) tradition service; it's not his inauguration or anything of any value or that would give any insight to the man's actual character.

So tell us, what do you really have against him?

He's black. So I hate him, with a white-hot (if you'll pardon the pun) hatred. You probably didn't know that all my ancestors were members of the KKK, including my parents. My 3-yr-old daughter has already set fire (voluntarily) to all the dolls she had that had skin that wasn't perfect lily-white. I'm a proud papa.

How do Obama's lies stack up against any president's of the last generation?

I didn't like Dubya either. Or Clinton. But 0bama's policies are much worse than either.And he's black. Did I mention that?

How is his personal life, beliefs, and example a problem, other than not being in your particular sect of Christian doctrine?

You mean his constant covering-up of his relationship with Bill Ayers and ACORN? And his evident 20-year-old agreement with Jeremiah Wright and subsequent "I don't even know that guy"s? And the fact that he's black? Already, that's a terrible example. I can't stomach the fact that my children will see a black person in a position of authority and think that could be acceptable or OK.

Thanks for your incisive responses. I'll assume the racist stuff is sarcasm and leave it be. Let me just take up one point, that of health care reform. There does seem to be a very basic divide between those who see service to their fellow man as an optional activity, to be organized around charitable giving and mainly church-based organizations, and those who go the extra mile and think that, if we all share a duty to be charitable to the down and out, the burden should be fairly shared in society at large.

As you probably know, charitable giving declines as a share of income as you get to higher income brackets. One could come up with interesting explanations for this, but the fact remains that generosity is highly variable through society, adn by no means highest among those who have benefitted the most from its gifts. Yet we all benefit when the homeless are sheltered and the sick cared for. So it stands to reason that society at large (with governemnt as its agent) collect the necessary funds in an equitable manner to perform these charitable services.

I recognize that this switch changes the tenor of the giving from something that is a personal and volutary gift in duty to your conscience to something that is a hateful intrusion of the collective (government) forcing you to pay up or go to jail. That is quite unfortunate, but that personal instinctive reaction can be overcome with a modicum of understanding of how the system works, and an appreciation of its hugely enhanced effectiveness in actually serving the needy, advancing from the Dickensian conditions of yore.

Yes, the racism stuff was directed at your "search your feelings, Luke" comment. Wasn't worthy of an actual response, to be honest.

service to their fellow man as an optional activity

Forced service is not service at all. It's slavery. You've missed my point entirely.

if we all share a duty to be charitable to the down and out,

This duty is not found in the Constitution.You're an atheist. What possible basis for duty could there be in your worldview?

collect the necessary funds in an equitable manner to perform these charitable services.

Once again, missed the point. They're not CHARITABLE services at all in your proposal. Further, you know what else goes up, the more money is present? Gov't waste. Pork. Corruption. No thanks.Finally, "quite unfortunate"? What's inaccurate about what I said?

It's all about you, isn't it? Making society more fair and helping the poor doesn't count if it doesn't make you feel better, which apparently also means not making you pay taxes. And certainly not if it doesn't serve as a conduit for captive audiences for evangelism. You've been to Japan- how do they treat their poor? With the casual distain we do here? Do they withhold health care from the poor and let them die in bankruptcy? Don't they maintain a comprehensive social contract, largely compulsory? Better than here, or worse?

"You're an atheist. What possible basis for duty could there be in your worldview?"

There's a funny one. As if having an imaginary friend is the key to knowing bad from good. A friend who supposedly wrote all that old testament stuff about killing people and being a big jerk, after which he sent his son to say that if we didn't believe now, we would go to hell after we die. Thanks, but no thanks.

Anyhow, it never ceases to amaze me how strong the indoctrination is of God = apple pie = better soldiers = moral basis. I recognize that morals are a matter of communal cultivation, and you might naturally get the impression that your community is the best one around. But if you could turn off the xenophobia for a moment, you might observe that atheists have better social indicators across the board (divorce, incarceration, education, etc.).

Morality (and duty) comes from us- from our likes, dislikes, deep sources of happines and fulfillment, and reasoning about how to make it all come together in society. There is no magic and no man behind the curtain- it is all us. The constitution is rather open-ended, allowing the people (us) to keep making laws and amendments to fulfill our vision of a better society, however inspired or uninspired. I'll continue urging you to look within, since that is where you may find feelings for others that aren't conditioned on co-belief, or on nostalgia for bygone times of local voluntary feudalism.

No, it's not all about me. The reason I brought up 1) Constitution, and2) atheismis b/c your case has to be made on one or both. If neither sustain your arguments, then your appeals to moral force are all bark and no bite. So, for example, we have to ask where the Constitution discusses "making society more fair"? It doesn't. Is "fair"-ness an objective concept that is possible in an atheist universe? There's no good, and no bad. You chalk it up to "a matter of communal cultivation", yet you feel free to reject OTHER matters of communal cultivation, like the vast majority's belief in the supernatural. So...you don't really believe that is the basis, clearly. What is the basis, then? You have to answer this before you can make any headway. Try again.

Do they withhold health care from the poor and let them die in bankruptcy?

1) Surely you realise that there's a major diff between health CARE and health INSURANCE. 2) You gave no reason other than some emotional tear-jerking why the US should emulate Japan.3) You gave no reason why others should be forced on pain of death and loss of property to pay for someone else's irresponsibility and/or misfortune.4) You begged the question by implying that withholding health care from someone is objectively morally wrong. WHY?

To illustrate further:Morality (and duty) comes from us- from our likes, dislikes, deep sources of happines and fulfillment, and reasoning about how to make it all come together in society.

1) Morality (and duty) comes from ME - from MY likes, dislikes, deep sources of happiness and fulfillment, and reasoning about how to make it all come together to work for ME.Now, am I wrong? How do you know? Just b/c most disagree? Might makes right or something? Numbers make right?2) How do you know what society has formed wrt duty? When did you do a survey? Whom did you ask? What % does it require to make sthg "wrong" and "right"? Can that change, depending on the morés of the society? How do you know?

And so with all the rest of your emoting. You have your assignment - get on it.The Christian, OTOH, doesn't necessarily ACT more morally. He may or may not. But he has a worldview on which it is possible to make judgments consistently as objectively good and objectively bad. That which aligns with the character and commands of God is good; that which doesn't is bad. The atheist has no such normative standard, or at least I've never seen one, and you've not provided one. Rather, you act like a Christian and pretend that there are objective goods and bads, and then when I ask you what you believe, you jump back into your atheist circle. Disingenuous. Stop borrowing from my worldview, please.

"The Christian, OTOH, doesn't necessarily ACT more morally. He may or may not. But he has a worldview on which it is possible to make judgments consistently as objectively good and objectively bad."

This is pure illusion. It is like my calling Donald Duck objectively real and a source for morals. Just because you believe a set of claims about supernatural beings and their writings, all contradicted by scientific and textual analysis, doesn't mean that their ethical claims are any better than any one else's. All you have done is planted a big, colorful, Duck-topped totem pole in front of your own desires (selected readings and teachings from your tradition) and asked everyone to now call them "objective".

"So, for example, we have to ask where the Constitution discusses "making society more fair"? It doesn't. Is "fair"-ness an objective concept that is possible in an atheist universe? There's no good, and no bad. You chalk it up to "a matter of communal cultivation", yet you feel free to reject OTHER matters of communal cultivation, like the vast majority's belief in the supernatural."

Here are some fascinating distinctions. First, claims about supernaturalism are matters of fact- they are either true- miracles, resurrections, intelligent design, relics of the saints, and all the rest - or not. I doubt you want to defend supernaturalism as being subjectively true, to the taste of the person doing the wishing.

On the other hand, good and bad, fairness and unfairness, are explicitly subjective. I want X, you want Y. We try to pursuade each other to want the same things by arguments either emotional or reasoned (by way to desired consequences), but there is no objective good to appeal to- just our desires, which each person has in equal measure. Now I realize that religious people habitually think that goodness is absolute. But think about it- God himself has evolved with our cultural progress, which is a strong indication that this god has been made in our image, and reflects our wants and needs, as surely as do our houses, cars, and political systems.

Now, as far as the constitution is concerned, its preamble goes:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is pretty broad, isn't it? Indeed the word "welfare" is right there! Welfare! Proceeding to section 1:8, it says that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". Heavens, there's that word "welfare", again! Totally broad scope, which was what prompted the framers to attatch the bill of rights, enumerating some negative restrictions, in view of the extremely broad powers installed in the main document.

"3) You gave no reason why others should be forced on pain of death and loss of property to pay for someone else's irresponsibility and/or misfortune."

I freely concede that I was, as you say, "emoting". I was playing on your emotions in an attempt to generate the caring that would lead to acceptance of the liberal position. There is no other reason to be given, really. I could try some utilitarian arguments, like the usefulness of immunizing everyone against communicable diseases, apart from ability to pay. But really, those are less important that emotional arguments. The question is which emotions do we appeal to- fear and hate, like Dick Armey's Army, or love. Now, you being a Christian, one would think that love would ring a bell, but whatever!

"4) You begged the question by implying that withholding health care from someone is objectively morally wrong. WHY? "

Again, I was simply trying to align your emotional reactions to mine, as have all the leaders in history.. Ghandi, MLK, etc. There is nothing objective about it. If you really don't feel that the irresponsible and the misfortunate have a claim to our attention and help, then there is little I can do to change your mind. But if the larger society does recognize such a duty, not on any objective basis, but purely because they feel that way, then they have the means, by the levers of power legitimated by our democratic system, to carry out that agenda in a collective, and effective, way.

IF my presuppositions are true, THEN I can appeal to an objective standard for discerning good from evil. That's all I was saying.I'd point to 1) your position's inability to give us an objective standard, and2) the fact that you thus over and over again borrow from the Christian worldview when you make value judgments and act like they're supposed to be normative for anyone else and create some sort of obligation

as evidence against your worldview and for mine. Your actions indicate my view is right.

your own desires (selected readings and teachings from your tradition)

That's up to you to prove. What precisely have I left out (since you said I "selected")? How do you know that I'm slapping makeup on my own desires? How do you know much of anything about me, or my desires? Are you my secret admirer (whom I've always suspected I had, but never knew for sure)?

I doubt you want to defend supernaturalism as being subjectively true, to the taste of the person doing the wishing.

Right, I don't. Interestingly, you are apparently defending your moral value judgments as being subjectively true. I just think it's funny who ends up playing the postmodern relativistic card.

by way to desired consequences

Back up. On what basis do you argue that desired consequences are the basis of morality?

there is no objective good to appeal to- just our desires, which each person has in equal measure

How do you know that?

God himself has evolved with our cultural progress,

Um, God is timeless and immutable.Maybe you mean our UNDERSTANDING of Him has evolved, but that's hardly the same thing. Further, the Bible's been around for 1000s of yrs. Hasn't really evolved. In fact, atheists frequently refer to Xtianity as "Bronze Age". Can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

this god has been made in our image, and reflects our wants and needs,

So, a God Who is so vast as to be incomprehensible in His fullness and Who convicts me of constant sin and breaking of His law, rendering me totally unworthy for any good thing, to say nothing of eternal life in Paradise, no matter what my actions end up being (b/c they always turn out for selfish evil anyway) is somehow a product of my desires, eh?Again, how do you know that? Did you do a survey? When? Whom did you survey? What makes you think humans dig a God Who delights in eternal self-glorification and eternal abasement of the puny man before said God?

Now, Constitution, you do realise that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution? Just like all Amendments...to the Constitution? 10th Amendment?

Now, you being a Christian, one would think that love would ring a bell, but whatever!

Sure it does. But love is not given by force. You still haven't responded to my original point about force vs generosity. Are you planning to do so?

I was simply trying to align your emotional reactions to mine, as have all the leaders in history.. Ghandi, MLK, etc. There is nothing objective about it.

So you don't know that Gandhi or MLK were doing good things, do you? That one would be justified in taking up common cause with them.I'm sure you realise the stupidity of appealing to emotion in the face of lack of evidence. Wouldn't you be quick to criticise evangelists who try to ramp up ppl's emotions and then bring them to a crushing crescendo with a booming altar call, to see thousands rush the altar in tears? Yeah, I think you would. But apparently your distaste with that approach is reserved for viewpoints you don't like. When the shoe's on the other foot, you're full speed ahead. Why?

"IF my presuppositions are true, THEN I can appeal to an objective standard"

Well, they aren't true... but even if they were true, the space twixt cup and lip is enormous. Firstly, scripture, which is presumably how you know anything about the big guy's positions on these issues, is self-contradictory and AWOL with respect to the issues where you really need a standard. Should we pull the plug on Grandma? What does the big guy say about it? Well, not much, really. Vast platitudes about not killing hardly answer the complicated questions that occur down here in actual people's lives. So you end up appealing, not to scripture, but perhaps to your clergy person, or your own conscience. I need not go through Eric's long posts on Biblical literalism, inerrantism, and the role of individual judgement. And the idea of not killing is hardly novel- these ideas are universal to the human condition, as far as platitudes go.

"How do you know that I'm slapping makeup on my own desires? How do you know much of anything about me, or my desires? Are you my secret admirer (whom I've always suspected I had, but never knew for sure)?"

You first have to agree with your "standard" before you implement it! If scripture said that you are supposed to kill your first-born son at age 12, would you do it? The legendary test that Abraham faced is something you would not even contemplate, and why? Because it is repugnant and against your values. Many of these values may come from your religious tradition, but there are plenty that don't- scripture hasn't changed for centuries, but somehow, religious values have changed. Torture was thought to be God's way of telling us of guilt/innocence, but now.. not so much. The old testament has countless "standards" that appear to gone out the window, for you as for everyone else.

More to the point, perhaps, a set of standards may well be "objective" in a sense for you as an individual, given to you by your father, and no back-talk. But ultimately for society at large, these standards are not that way at all, but have been developed by ongoing judgements made communally as the zeitgeist proceeds, perhaps with the particular influence of various leaders. God has played the front-person for the communal effort towards values, whether good or bad (note that Islam has the same front person, different songs, different values). You'll note that as far as we know, every word of scripture was written by a human being.

"Interestingly, you are apparently defending your moral value judgments as being subjectively true. I just think it's funny who ends up playing the postmodern relativistic card."

Ah- this is an interesting topic indeed. You may find a laugh or two among the religious "radical orthodox" folks who think quite highly of postmodernism. Anyhow, subjectivity can be easily distinguished from postmodernism and relativism. The latter posit that knowledge is relative or constructed- that in effect, there are no facts and no knowledge that is universal. Being a scientist, this is the farthest thing from what I would advocate. There are plenty of objective facts. But God isn't one of them, and nor are values-, good, bad, evil, etc.

You would have to agree that we have subjective desires and wants- that vanilla or chocolate is not an objective good or bad, but an individual choice. Relativism works for subjective issues, and the ultimate subjective issue is - what is good. We certainly benefit from traditions and wise people telling us what they think is good- how, given the general human condition, lives may be arranged to achieve various levels of happiness that humans are capable of. All this might seem rather objective, human nature being quite uniform ... among humans. But still, it is ultimately subjective, since what is good for us might not be good for dolphins, or for clams, or for aliens far more advanced than ourselves.

And that is what scripture really is- a compendium of wise (or not so wise) thoughts from various people in the past who found it exceedingly convenient to put words into the mouth of god. You see it happening still today from the Mormons and Joseph Smith to the Moonies and other cults, each with a direct line to god, the better to keep believers down on the farm, as it were.

"On what basis do you argue that desired consequences are the basis of morality? "

This was trotted out only to say that reason has a strong role in moral reasoning, insofar as we live in a complicated world, and getting to the emotional goods we want (ultimate criterion) may not be easy or quick. Politics is a huge exercise in aligning the desires of countless people based on what they feel is good and best through a calculus of mutual discussion and influence, out of which pops ... the constitution and all the other mechanisms of government, civic, and social life.

"So, a God Who is so vast as to be incomprehensible in His fullness and Who convicts me of constant sin and breaking of His law, rendering me totally unworthy for any good thing, to say nothing of eternal life in Paradise, no matter what my actions end up being (b/c they always turn out for selfish evil anyway) is somehow a product of my desires, eh?"

Ever hear of sado-masochism? Not to be flip, but human psychology is pretty complex, and guilt is a very comfortable feeling for many. And of course many people are oppressed by religion, not lifted up by it. They have adopted belief not out of their personal process of searching and spiritual consciousness, (let alone logical deduction!), but out of indoctrination and fear, adopting the psychological complexes of others before them.

"I'm sure you realise the stupidity of appealing to emotion in the face of lack of evidence. Wouldn't you be quick to criticise evangelists who try to ramp up ppl's emotions and then bring them to a crushing crescendo with a booming altar call, to see thousands rush the altar in tears? Yeah, I think you would. But apparently your distaste with that approach is reserved for viewpoints you don't like. When the shoe's on the other foot, you're full speed ahead. Why?"

That is a very good point. The problem I have with this scene is that a series of factual propositions are being inculcated by emotional means- Jesus exists, Jesus loves you, etc., etc. Mixed in with those are some subjective values as well, like that it is good to love imaginary beings, and that it is good to be a member of this community with all its social support and love. I might disagree with the latter points as per my own feelings and judgements, but I only have serious objective disagreements with the former, since they are wrong, at least from the evidence I've ever seen.

I don't grant that the Scr is self-contradictory at all. Tell you what, I've got a policy around my blog - offer your 5 best "contradictions" and we'll see how good they are. Make sure they're your best; after 5 I conclude that you've got nothing.

Should we pull the plug on Grandma? What does the big guy say about it?

Saying that the Scr provides an objective standard is not the same as saying it's exhaustive and answers to the minutest minutiæ every single question and situation we ever encounter. However, we CAN know for sure that we shouldn't shoot Grandma in the head when she's walking and talking and perfectly healthy. On atheism, there's no way to answer that question.God sometimes addresses specific things in the Scr and sometimes provides general principles and promises wisdom to help make decisions and to "work all things together for the good of those who love God" (Romans 8:28) in any case.

Vast platitudes about not killing hardly answer the complicated questions that occur down here in actual people's lives.

Um, yes they do, a lot of the time. You think that world history has resembled the generally peaceful Pax americana that has prevailed as of late? Try reading a little history.

I need not go through Eric's long posts on Biblical literalism, inerrantism, and the role of individual judgement.

And the idea of not killing is hardly novel- these ideas are universal to the human condition, as far as platitudes go.

1) Yet a whole lot of people do it. 2) And there's an easy way around that for cultures - just define your enemies as non-human and then you can kill 'em with gusto. Happens all the time, even in the modern West - how do you think so many people came to accept the legality of abortion?3) This doesn't address whether it's wrong. Just addresses what ppl usually do, which is far from the same thing.

If scripture said that you are supposed to kill your first-born son at age 12, would you do it?

Yes. Now, on atheism, tell me why that's bad.

The legendary test that Abraham faced is something you would not even contemplate, and why?

Torture was thought to be God's way of telling us of guilt/innocence, but now

??

a set of standards may well be "objective" in a sense for you as an individual

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "objective" - to qualify it like you did is fatal to the actual meaning.I'm talking about a moral standard that is normative for all people at all times in all circumstances everywhere. Put another way, a standard that is true independent of whether anyone believes it or not (that's way WL Craig puts it).

But ultimately for society at large, these standards are not that way at all, but have been developed by ongoing judgements made communally as the zeitgeist proceeds,

You'll note that as far as we know, every word of scripture was written by a human being.

It's not like Christians deny this. The question is whether it was written by ONLY humans or whether God inspired it as well.

There are plenty of objective facts.

Could you give me an example?

But God isn't one of them, and nor are values-, good, bad, evil,

OK. I'd like to know your reaction to my scenario.It would appear that, if you're to be consistent, you'd have to say that there is no way to condemn the killer other than "I don't like what he did". Which is what all atheistic moral statements reduce to. And a morality of one is no morality at all.

Relativism works for subjective issues, and the ultimate subjective issue is - what is good.

We certainly benefit from traditions and wise people telling us what they think is good

Begging the question. You don't know whether they're giving you good advice or not, or whether they really are wise or not, b/c there's no way to tell whether what they say is good or whether they have a good store of experience from which to draw.

getting to the emotional goods we want (ultimate criterion) may not be easy or quick.

You simply cannot answer the question. How do you know getting emotional goods we want is a good thing? Jeffrey Dahmer got his emotional goods by killing and eating people. Josef F got his goods from raping his daughter for 20+ yrs. So by your criteria, good?

Ever hear of sado-masochism? Not to be flip, but human psychology is pretty complex, and guilt is a very comfortable feeling for many.

Ah, so that's why the local S&M store makes so much more revenue than Wal-Mart? Come on.

And of course many people are oppressed by religion, not lifted up by it.

You lack any objective standard to measure that, so this is nothing more than a throwaway line. Do try to be consistent, would you?

They have adopted belief not out of their personal process of searching and spiritual consciousness, (let alone logical deduction!), but out of indoctrination and fear,

Well, let's just start with the old testament vs the new testament. Were the old testament writers incorrectly "inspired"? Or did they sinfully (and errantly) slip in some of their own genocidal ideas, later to be disowned by Jesus? Or did God himself grow up a little bit, indicating that what was "objectively good" in the old testament wasn't really objective at all, let alone good, but immature and horrid?

Your various posts and links are interesting, but seem a tad defensive. I mean, trying to justify the Isaac/ Abraham story? Please. It was just a story, after all- never happened. It was merely a legend to show the magnitude of his faith. Nothing historical about it. Least of all the angels and voice of god. Does god speak to you?

me: "But ultimately for society at large, these standards are not that way at all, but have been developed by ongoing judgements made communally as the zeitgeist proceeds,

This is like shooting fish in a barrel... link titled 'Societal moral consensus' "

Your post here proposes that the atheist moral system can run off the rails, because no authority tells us what is good or not. You could wish for everyone else to die, for instance. This is all quite true. But can't you see that this problem of running off the rails is hardly a problem restricted to self-controlling, democratic communities? It is precisely the same problem faced by the Islamic community of today, or the old testament communities at various times, the state of Israel today with its settlers, and many others.

Religion has objectively been no bar to immorality and sometimes the opposite. That is because religion makes it up as it goes along just like the rest of us do, precisely because religion is composed of and made by people who are the rest of is, with no more inspiration or knowledge of so-called objective goodness than anyone else. We are all in the same boat, and dressing up some people in fancy hats or some texts in gold lettering doesn't make their origin at human hands go away. Indeed, dressing up ancient texts has a retardative effect, since insofar as humanity can progress morally, those texts are not going to keep up. Islam deals with this all the time- how are they going to square women's rights, gay rights, and a peaceful international system with the Koran?

me: "But God isn't one of them, and nor are values-, good, bad, evil,

OK. I'd like to know your reaction to my scenario (link)."

Very interesting... though I wouldn't freely accuse religion of quite such horrors as you do. Anyhow, as I mentioned, human nature is uniform enough to say that some things are naturally repugnant, as are most of the elements of your scenario. Repugnant to me as a listener, to the girls involved, and ultimately, to the men involved and their society as well, if they could peek out from their ideology for a moment (looking deep inside, by my parlance!). But we have enough known cases of religious ritual sacrifice to know that this is not entirely beyond the pale.

So I would say two things: If that society had a strong enough ideology that everyone bought into this system of sacrifice, then fine- whatever they think in their fullness of wisdom is best and good, that is what they should do. We have a similar situation in North Korea right now- that an entire country is brain-washed to some extent, and may have quite a difficult time adjusting to a free system, if that ever comes. It's not my job to tell other people what they should think is good, only to tell them about better ways to get to what they may also think is ultimately good.

On the other hand, I would doubt that everyone in that society has really and fully bought into their ritual system, so the people being most strongly oppressed are going to have strong motivations to bring their plight to general emotional attention and force a societal re-think of what is going on- towards a more equitable system. Insofar as everyone's interest is to live happily in a happy society, if they could manage to do so without making a subset of the population intensely unhappy, they may be interested in that possibility.

"Begging the question. You don't know whether they're giving you good advice or not, or whether they really are wise or not, b/c there's no way to tell whether what they say is good or whether they have a good store of experience from which to draw."

Ah- very good point! But how sharply it impales your own position! How do you know that the bible is good and the Koran not? Or the many other scriptures that have been offered, some with far more plausible historical support than the bible? My position is that we are our own judges of good and bad, which naturally extends to the choice of models to follow, and the selection of their advice. (Of Jesus, I certainly like some of his supposed sayings, but not others, like all the "believe in me or go to hell" parts).

How do you explain not being part of the Catholic and Apostolic church, when that is the good and best form of Christianity? There must be some reason you came up with to join what I presume is a protestant sect that split from that main church and worships differently and thinks differently about god. All these things are matters of human judgement, all based on what you think, not what you are forced to think by some other inspired thinker with inspired thoughts, since there are far more of those available than you actually obey.

me: "They have adopted belief not out of their personal process of searching and spiritual consciousness, (let alone logical deduction!), but out of indoctrination and fear,

If atheism is true, what's wrong with that? "

As per the above, I'm not against personal beliefs and ideologies per se. I might be able to argue that this kind of belief is psychologically harmful in the long run. I also share with most of society a basic commitment to truth in belief, which this would violate- true beliefs are better because they make society more beneficial and effective for every member in it.

But if people are being made happier by indoctrination in original sin and fallen-ness, in their worm-like nature and need for salvation by an imaginary being for an imaginary afterlife, then far be it from me to actively deny them that solace.

Sorry, been busy.Yes, the OT writers were inspired, just the same as the NT. But writing for diff reasons with diff levels of revelation.The genocides of the OT were never disowned by Jesus. What do you mean? Whatever God commands is objectively good, by definition. If God commands you to kill twenty babies, it would be evil to disobey. You'll no doubt react with emotion "how horrible!" Whether it IS horrible comes down to your alternative, and we've seen many times so far in our convo that you have no alternative foundation for morality. It's horrible to YOU. So what? Brussel sprouts are horrible to ME. To be horrified is to be an inconsistent atheist.

Does god speak to you?

Yes, thru the Bible.

But can't you see that this problem of running off the rails is hardly a problem restricted to self-controlling, democratic communities?

That's not a question that's interesting to me. Of COURSE people are sinful - that's part of my wordview, after all. I'm interested in why you, as an atheist, think it's a bad thing. Or how you can objectively define "running off the rails" with sthg more meaningful than "they deviate substantially from the statistical norm". To which anyone's response should be, "So?"

Religion has objectively been no bar to immorality and sometimes the opposite.

1) I've never denied that. So what?2) I'm interested in HOW YOU KNOW what's moral. You're committing the same facile missing-the-boat that Hitchens does.

dressing up ancient texts has a retardative effect, since insofar as humanity can progress morally,

W/o a standard to which to compare, you have no way to know whether humanity is indeed progressing.

human nature is uniform enough to say that some things are naturally repugnant,

So now deviation from the statistical average is how you define repugnant? So what happens when society changes? And how do you know when you have a majority? Did you take a poll? When? When ancient Roman society would throw out unwanted (but born) babies on their doorsteps or in the river, that was right, right?

We have a similar situation in North Korea right now- that an entire country is brain-washed to some extent,

On atheism, there's no reason to think that WE'RE not the brainwashed ones. There's no objective way to know whether freedom of conscience and democracy is good. You keep just assuming. I want PROOF. Arguments.

Insofar as everyone's interest is to live happily in a happy society, if they could manage to do so without making a subset of the population intensely unhappy, they may be interested in that possibility.

1) Or they may not.2) I'm asking you HOW YOU KNOW these things are right. Stop pushing the question back one step. Answer it.

How do you know that the bible is good and the Koran not?

B/c the God of the Bible is appealed to in the Qur'an - see Surah 5. The Qur'an says the Bible is the Word of God also, and the Bible has no notion of the modern ppl of God engaging in warfare against the infidel. And it says that all revelation to follow must correspond to what God has already said, but the Qur'an doesn't. And on and on. In short, it's b/c Islam is internally inconsistent in central (and therefore fatal) ways.

How do you explain not being part of the Catholic and Apostolic church, when that is the good and best form of Christianity?

B/c it's not. I'd encourage you to check out the blog to which I contribute - Beggars All: Reformation Apologetics.

This discussion is decending into comedy. You claim absolute morals and values that make no difference in your behavior? What on earth is the point?

"Of COURSE people are sinful - that's part of my wordview, after all. I'm interested in why you, as an atheist, think it's a bad thing."

"I'm interested in HOW YOU KNOW what's moral. You're committing the same facile missing-the-boat that Hitchens does. "

I know in exactly the same way you do. For all your bravado of obeying god if she tells you to kill twenty babies, you are not following countless god-given commands like kosher food, sacrificial killing of chickens, etc. And you are also not following all the commands given by god in the muslim Koran, which, as you probably heard, is a later revelation that supercedes all the prior ones. And also picking and choosing your denomination within Christianity, all of which are as true as the others, etc. etc.

Nope, you pick and choose by necessity, as do I. I am just honest about it, while you, sir, are not.

And what are my (our) criteria? Easy- inborn desires and rational judgement. As a social species, the golden rule comes naturally, either by reason or by inculcation from our elders. Fairness is the first and loudest cry of every child. Most people have similar desires, while a few are psychopaths and need to be suppressed by the majority (in a functional society).

"W/o a standard to which to compare, you have no way to know whether humanity is indeed progressing."

Our standard is history. Can we do better than our forebears, (as we seem to be doing now), or are we doing worse, as happened after the Roman empire was Christianized for oh, about 700 years? Better in terms of the maximum number of people living in ways that allow them some success in the pursuit of happiness. Again, an inborn and cultivated criterion accessible to all.

"When ancient Roman society would throw out unwanted (but born) babies on their doorsteps or in the river, that was right, right?"

No, I wouldn't call it right, and nor would they. I doubt they did so happily or without qualms. But out of necessity, not having access to early and effective abortion, not to mention birth control.

"On atheism, there's no reason to think that WE'RE not the brainwashed ones. There's no objective way to know whether freedom of conscience and democracy is good. You keep just assuming. I want PROOF. Arguments."

I hold to no absolutes, other than what feelings we have inborn and cultivated through culture. We certainly are brainwashed, whether religious or non-religious. We believe that our votes matter, that the supreme court is non-political, that corporations should have free speech, etc. etc. The question is how flagrantly such beliefs fly in the face of scientific truths, (when they have anything to do with science). And secondly, how flagrantly such beliefs victimize members of society, violating their inborn values and desires. But that is just what I think... others might well think differently. Values are a communal and evolving enterprise.

me: "It's not my job to tell other people what they should think is good."

"So don't. But you do, b/c you just can't help it. You're a hypocrite, b/c you're suppressing the truth about God that you know but won't admit. Just take a look at things you've said even in this very thread: ..."

Good point. I'll take that one back in part- it is not really my job (I have a day job, after all!), but at the same time, it certainly is my right... to tell people what I think is good and why they should agree. That is the only way that we are going to mutually agree on common issues and values, as society evolves.

More to the point, though, whatever the subjective opinions I am spouting, the concept of god is an entirely different matter. That is a matter of fact, either true or not true.. that is not a matter of my wanting and you not wanting a god (from what I understand of your beliefs in such a being). So this is a matter of objective debate, in a way that morals are not, being non-objective. And truth is certainly everyone's job to pursue, for clear personal and social ends.

."I'm asking you HOW YOU KNOW these things are right. Stop pushing the question back one step. Answer it."

The point is that I don't know these things are right- it is not a matter of knowledge at all, but of feeling and communal discussion. And you don't know either, except that you claim to accept the feelings and desires of several-thousand year-old writers over your own, which, while laudably self-effacing and humble, gets you no closer to moral "truth" because such a thing does not exist. You are simply claiming to replace your own judgements with a carefully selected gumbo of other sources- Luther, Calvin, Jesus, Moses, picking as from a buffet. Do you agree with Luther's dicta about the Jews?

You seem to rely on dubious historical analysis, extremely dubious textual apologetics, and poor science, combined with adulation of Martin Luther, to come up with your absolute truth of morals and values. I am sure this may not seem terribly parochial to you and your fellow Beggars bloggers, but hearing about how totally and absolutely true each sect in the world is (see Moonies, Catholics, Branch Davidians, Mormons, Muslims, etc, etc) is, I'm afraid, a big argument for why they are all totally wrong. I had a cousin who had joined some perfectly correct Indian sect that was going to take over the whole world within five years, and this was, sad to say, fifteen years ago.

You claim absolute morals and values that make no difference in your behavior?

No, it makes a diff. But even if it didn't, my point would still stand. On atheism, if I were to hold to values that made no diff in my behavior, that would be morally equivalent to whether they DID make a diff. That is, neither right nor wrong.

you are not following countless god-given commands like kosher food, sacrificial killing of chickens, etc.

1) This comment just shows you have no idea how to deal with the OT. 2) Even if it were true, you're still not helping your own side. If I'm a hypocrite, that's irrelevant.

Do you agree with Luther's dicta about the Jews?

Even if I did, tell me how it's wrong. Maybe it aligns with my inborn desires and my rational judgment. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong? On what basis? How do you know what my desires and judgment are telling me? And how do you know they're wrong?See the "Luther and the Jews" section here for my answer.

And what are my (our) criteria? Easy- inborn desires and rational judgement.

1) This still commits the naturalistic fallacy.2) What if my inborn desires and rational judgment lead me to conclude that the world would be much better if all atheists had been messily killed with a knife? Right or wrong? How can we know?The rest of your comment is more of the same. I suggest you start actually answering the challenges I've raised. You're sort of just off in your own little world right now. I'll give you one more chance, but more of the same and I'm done here. I'm not saying that's some horrible thing, like you should be afraid or threatened or sthg if I stop commenting here, but what I'm saying is I have limited time and don't want to go on the same merry go round time and again. Step up your game.

You bring up the naturalistic fallacy, which is quite interesting. You appear to think that any appeal to how we feel about the "good" is out of bounds, because that would be taking what is and is natural for what ought to be ... ethical. Is that correct?

So you would be comfortable with an ethical system taken from other sources that make no recourse to how we feel and think best about our needs and possibilities? Ideally from some scripture, not written by a bunch of desert-crazed madmen claiming to hear voices from god, but by a Deity itself dictating to us chapter and verse of what you should do to make Her happy, not to make you happy. Down to what you should eat, how you should have sex, go to the bathroom- every detail. Would that make you happy? Why would that be? (Doesn't that sound slightly ironic?)

I would suggest that would be (aside from considerations of sadomasochism) because you presume an implicit contract whereby this deity promises eternal happiness in return for such slavish devotion. So the criterion turns out to be precisely the same (what feels good to you), only delayed by way of the afterlife. Suppose now this deity promised you that after doing exactly what she instructed for your whole life, you would go to hell for eternity, but if you disobeyed Her, you would go to heaven. What then? Aren't you making an enormous assumption in concieving of this deity as "good" and interested in ... you guessed it ... your happiness?

The Wiki page states: "Moore's argument in Principia Ethica is (among other things) a defense of ethical non-naturalism; he argues that the term "good" (in the sense of intrinsic value) is indefinable..." Well, that is helpful indeed, isn't it? Just like a philosopher to define a perfectly good(!) term right out of existence. Well, I think I have addressed the core issues above. The issue is whether we make ourselves feel better by yoking ourselves to some supposedly objective standard whose origin can only be either some philosophical scheme of our own, or the prior subjective judgements or schemes of others ... or whether we acknowledge the moral source for what it is, which is what makes us feel better, in the long run and across the communal group, arrived at by ongoing discussion and negotiation.

No, I'm making two separate responses.You have appealed to feelings and desires as your standard for knowing right from wrong. I've shown the failure of that by asking how you know it's wrong when a serial rapist's feelings and desires lead him to do things you consider disgusting and horrible. You have also appealed to reason, and that's where the naturalistic fallacy comes into play. Reason can tell us IS and HOW, but not OUGHT.

a Deity itself dictating to us chapter and verse of what you should do to make Her happy, not to make you happy.

1) I note that you apparently have some deep-seated need to be as blasphemous as possible, referring to Deity as "She" all the time. Whatever.2) That's in fact what we have in the Bible. But b/c of God's goodness and generosity, doing what glorifies God is also good, the best, for humans.

Suppose now this deity promised you that after doing exactly what she instructed for your whole life, you would go to hell for eternity, but if you disobeyed Her, you would go to heaven. What then?

Might as well ask me if I'd draw delicious with yellow corners if it were in fact stinky black.

Aren't you making an enormous assumption in concieving of this deity as "good" and interested in ... you guessed it ... your happiness?

There's plenty of reason not to consider an irrational worldview as a serious challenger to a rational one.

in the long run and across the communal group, arrived at by ongoing discussion and negotiation.

You know, the morality of the community in my scenario was also arrived at by ongoing discussion and negotiation. If you thus accept Tkalim's community's morality as legitimate and totally acceptable, then you'd be consistent. Is that what you're going to do?

About Me

Eric, an award-winning scholar and writer, teaches philosophy at Oklahoma State University. His first book, IS GOD A DELUSION? A REPLY TO RELIGION'S CULTURED DESPISERS, was named one of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles of 2009. His other books include GOD'S FINAL VICTORY (co-authored with John Kronen) and (available later this year) THE TRIUMPH OF LOVE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CHRISTIAN LOVE ETHIC.